 |
||||||||||||
|
December 2001 -
Foundations Ref D21 Since 1997, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has supported a programme of research on work and opportunity. This review draws on seventeen projects from the programme, together with eighteen other projects supported by the Foundation as part of other programmes, particularly the Area Regeneration programme. The projects ranged from overviews of research results, analysis of large-scale national surveys to local projects involving in-depth qualitative research with small numbers of people. This overview concentrates on the common threads relevant to policy. The key messages to emerge are:
The Work and Opportunity programme has four main research themes:
The important topic of education and training was not a priority: there are already considerable resources, both from the government and from the ESRC, devoted to research in these areas. However, projects addressing the four main themes also highlighted issues relating to education and training.
Local circumstances can vary broadly within the UK. National policies - whether developed in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff or Belfast - have to be delivered locally. Most Britons do not move from one area to another. Thus, successful employment policies have to improve the match between labour supply and demand at a local level. There are three dimensions to the issue of local delivery:
A variety of organisations deliver programmes at a local level. Some are part of a national government agency (for example, the Employment Service). Some are local authorities. Others are private companies, Local Enterprise Companies, development agencies, national or local voluntary organisations, or specially established partnership bodies. The central messages coming out of the research apply to all these types of organisation, although some are better placed than others to accommodate them. The economic and social
context Needs vary by location: local data, knowledge and experience are important in meeting local needs. Evaluation studies consistently show that a sense of ownership and influence by the local community is normally associated with more successful projects. A positive sense of ownership is likely to encourage more people to take part in the project and to generate greater enthusiasm and commitment among participants.2 The closer local policies and programmes are to the labour market the more likely they are to be successful. Training and work experience must be focused on the immediate needs of local employers or they will not help clients to get jobs. Monitoring of local vacancies in general and developing close links with a few key local employers, who may be willing to offer programme participants priority access to vacancies, are essential. But engagement with employers is not easy. It takes time and effort, and most employers will expect to see some business benefits, perhaps in terms of an improved stream of potential recruits.3 The needs of individuals Those with work-related skills may need help in job search, personal presentation or guidance about new types of work. Those who have worked in a single industry that has gone into decline need to understand the nature of the job opportunities now available and the specific value of their previous experience. Young people entering the labour market, or recognising that they have started on the wrong foot, need a clear understanding of their options, the sort of qualifications they are likely to need and the different routes to those qualifications. Those who have problems with basic skills will not be ready for vocational training and may not be able to manage work experience with an employer. People with health, substance abuse or housing problems may need to tackle these alongside their efforts to undertake training or find work. Standard packages and targets based on the average or 'typical' participant may encourage staff to concentrate on those who are easiest to help. People with multiple disadvantages may need help and support over a longer period than those whose problems are fewer and more easily addressed. Developing confidence and motivation and setting step-by-step targets to give a sense of achievement are an important part of the solution. A 'job-readiness' index or other form of measuring progress, including motivation, personal and vocational skills, can be valuable, both in giving positive feedback to individuals and in measuring the performance of projects and programmes.5 The projects and programmes which are most successful in helping participants to get and keep jobs are more likely to recognise that individuals differ in their needs for support and help. These programmes tend to offer an individual action plan with clearly defined intermediate targets as well as longer-term goals, skills development, guidance, support in job search and referral to other agencies for problems of other kinds. They do not offer training or work experience in isolation.6 Capacity of delivery
agencies Staff new to this type of work have no established mechanisms for ensuring access to information from other projects about what works and what does not. Local agencies involved in delivery have a tendency to start with a clean sheet. This means that mistakes are repeated and the opportunity to adapt models which have been successful elsewhere is lost. Moreover, there is a growing body of evidence on approaches which have consistently failed. There are obvious advantages in encouraging new projects to avoid these. However, the emphasis on innovation in funding regimes is likely to increase the probability of failure by reducing the use of proven methods and increasing the use of untested ones.7 Increasingly a great deal is being asked of staff involved in policy delivery. This applies to locally developed and funded programmes, but also within the Employment Service and in new services like Connexions. The move towards multi-functional personal advisers across a range of employment policy areas - the New Deal, One and Connexions being the obvious examples - poses a challenge to the skills of the staff likely to be recruited to these posts, and to their employers, especially the Government. It is unlikely that those skilled in dealing with employers and their needs, and in understanding the working of the local labour market, will also have the counselling and negotiating skills necessary to deal with clients with multiple problems and the local community, and vice versa. Relationships between clients and personal advisers appear to have an important bearing on the outcomes for New Deal clients. Ensuring that staff have the right mix of skills is essential. But the same is true of local, project-based staff; they are required to deliver services to clients and to run efficient financial and resource management systems. The management skills necessary to operate successfully in local delivery are far wider than those found in many other types of work.8 Developing genuine partnerships represents a real challenge, especially to national public agencies. If three or four agencies are involved, their differing objectives and accountability requirements can make projects very difficult to manage; administrative hurdles alone can prevent them from achieving their objectives. Multiple area-based initiatives are putting pressure on the limited capacity of areas suffering from a variety of problems to develop and deliver local partnerships.9 Funding regimes can also cause problems. The lack of continuity in funding, the need to bring together funding from different sources and the unwillingness of funding agencies to pay anything other than marginal costs mean that organisations, especially those in the voluntary sector, are often unable to manage the risks involved in establishing the systems and skills required.10
Traditionally employment policy has focused only on those who are claiming benefits because they are unemployed. However, only one in every five people of working age who is not working is classified as 'unemployed' according to internationally agreed statistical definitions (that is they are not working, available for work and looking for work). Other groups who are not working but who might want to work are not generally a priority for programmes, even where they are eligible to be considered. Employment policies and programmes have traditionally been a combination of 'carrots' in the form of opportunities and 'sticks' in terms of rules about behaviour. While there is widespread recognition that the sticks may not be appropriate for many who are 'workless' rather than unemployed, such as lone parents, this should not mean that they are also deprived of opportunities. The New Deals for lone parents and disabled people are a useful, albeit limited, first step to recognising the anomaly of the traditional approach. Labour market policy which focuses only on 'unemployed' people is unlikely to maximise employment. In reality, the boundary between being 'unemployed' rather than 'economically inactive' is not clear-cut; people slip from one category to the other depending on how recently they have looked for work. Half of all movements from non-employment into work involve people previously classified as economically inactive. Many groups of people defined as being outside the labour market are at least as likely to get jobs as those unemployed. Conversely, many unemployed people are unlikely to get work.11 As with those long-term unemployed, people with few or no qualifications are more likely to be inactive than other groups in the population. A third of men of working age with no qualifications are economically inactive compared with around one in ten of those who have GCSE or higher qualifications. Well over half of lone mothers dependent on Income Support have no qualifications at all. Lone mothers with qualifications are much more likely to have jobs.12 As well as similarities in gender, age and skills, there is a close geographical correlation between high levels of long-term unemployment and high levels of inactivity of people of working age. The rate of non-employment in inner cities, especially London, in former mining and industrial areas, and in some coastal towns is significantly greater than the unemployment figures suggest. Inactivity rose during the 1980s and early 1990s as unemployment rose. However, as unemployment fell from the mid-1990s onwards, inactivity did not follow the same pattern.13 Disability and poor health are not the only explanations for people moving into inactivity rather than remaining unemployed, since poor health and disability are also common among those who are unemployed. Half the people not working who would like to work have some kind of disability. A third of those available to start work within a fortnight do. Even among young unemployed people, health problems are quite common. One in five unemployed people aged 18-24 has a health problem.14 Areas with high levels of worklessness suffer both from depressed local demand and from the effect on individuals of long periods without work. These effects are the same whether those without work are classified as unemployed or otherwise inactive. Moreover, the greatest detachment from the labour market tends to occur among those who have been out of work for the longest periods, especially older lone mothers, and it is unlikely that these groups could be integrated successfully into work without help. In terms both of inflationary pressure and social exclusion, there is a strong case for not differentiating between inactive and unemployed people in terms of eligibility for help and support in getting back to work.
Access to reliable and affordable transport has become more important for those seeking work. The growing tendency of jobs to be located on the edge of towns in large retail units, industrial estates or business parks has exacerbated transport problems. With one exception,15 the research projects reviewed here did not plan to examine transport needs. However, the issue emerged spontaneously both from interviews with employers and individuals and from analysis of existing data. The evidence on the importance of transport is therefore both direct and indirect. One piece of indirect evidence is from the analysis of a survey of people who were initially unemployed. This found that, after taking account of qualifications and social class indicators such as housing tenure, unemployed young people with driving licences get back to work twice as quickly as those without. Moreover, while four out of five young men with jobs had a driving licence, only half of unemployed men did. The same study found that young people who lived with their parents were less likely to remain unemployed than those who lived alone or with a partner.16 Part of the explanation for this is likely to be that parents may be in a position to help with transport, both to interviews and to work, or they may subsidise driving lessons or car ownership. In rural areas, many young people get their first car while they are still at school or college, so are dependent on their parents to pay for maintenance and running costs.17 There is some evidence to suggest that young people increasingly attach higher priority to running a car than they do to living independently. Some of those who are living with their parents in their twenties choose to do so as a way of affording to run a car.18 Evidence from both employers and job-seekers suggests that employers, particularly but not only those in rural areas, are increasingly wary about recruiting people without reliable independent transport. They believe that those dependent on public transport are less reliable employees and they are often unwilling to be flexible around starting and finishing times in order to accommodate bus timetables. Some job offers are contingent on the applicant having access to a car. Other employers are unwilling to consider applicants who do not already own a car.19 Individuals too find public transport very expensive, sometimes prohibitively so, unreliable and not compatible with their work schedules.20 Another project - looking at recruitment and retention in low skilled jobs, mainly in the service sector - found that jobs in town centres or other areas with good public transport had markedly more applicants than those in less convenient areas. Since, many of these jobs involved shift work, it was not surprising that transport was an important factor.21 The large programme of research on the New Deals found that lack of transport was one of the main barriers to finding work for the long-term unemployed.22 Transport has never been considered part of employment policy. Transport policy has to address the needs of the whole community. The research reviewed here suggests that - outside large cities - both employers and individuals increasingly share the perception that unless someone owns a car they will not get and keep a job, and that public transport is irrelevant to and not designed for those who are working. If that is the case then those without work who do not own cars are at a double disadvantage: if they do not have a job they will not be able to afford to buy a car. But unless they own a car, they will be unable to get a job. The other option is to ensure that public transport systems recognise the importance of meeting the needs of those with or seeking jobs. To do so they need both to be affordable and to have timetables compatible with working hours.
Young people Vocational education and training is generally available to three groups of people:
Those in low-skilled jobs, whose current employer would gain no advantage from upgrading their skills, have relatively few choices. For those wishing to enter higher education as mature students, the pathways are relatively clear. However, for those aiming for qualifications at NVQ levels 2 or 3, and who do not have the support of their employer, the options are severely constrained. They are not excluded either from work or from the life of the community, as they might be if they were unemployed. They are not therefore a policy priority. However, they are in jobs which have few or no career prospects, and which offer no opportunity to move up the skills ladder. When jobs are scarce, it might seem reasonable to argue that any job is better than no job. However, the experience of those who lose their jobs and subsequently take jobs at a lower level than previously is not encouraging. One study showed that only a minority moved on to a better job.23 Now that the labour market is tighter, it seems reasonable to ask whether there is any scope for enabling people who are in jobs which they find unsatisfactory, which are low-paid, and which do not maximise their potential, might get more help to change direction. Researchers analysing the Youth Cohort Studies over a ten-year period found that by the 1990s only 30 per cent of sixteen-year-olds move from full-time education to full-time work. Ten years earlier this pattern was the norm. Transitions have become much more varied.24 Some young people have very complex experiences. Those who have experienced a family bereavement, been ill, become pregnant, have substance abuse problems, have been looked after by a local authority, or in trouble with the criminal justice system are particularly likely not to have moved smoothly from full-time education into work. Sometimes the trigger is less traumatic. Some young people have problems such as not getting on with a key teacher in the early years of secondary school.25 Young men who are not doing well in school may turn to truancy and misbehaviour. Peer pressure can reinforce bad behaviour, and it can be exceptionally difficult for young men to return to the mainstream. Poor school performance in turn is a good predictor of delinquency. Half of all truants commit criminal offences compared with only a quarter of non-truants. Three-quarters of excluded pupils offend compared with only a third of those who are not excluded. Around half of all male prisoners have no educational or vocational qualifications of any kind. There is also some evidence that around half of all offenders have serious literacy problems. Those who have not done well at school, including both ex-offenders and those who have been in care, are also over-represented among young homeless people living in hostels.26 Many young men who waste their time at school subsequently regret this. They learn through experience rather than from what others tell them. Looking back, they see school as a missed opportunity. They thought life after school would be much easier than life at school but find it is much harder. Jobs in retailing and services are relatively easy to come by, but do not offer long-term prospects. Many admit that they lacked confidence at their studies and so to secure their status they had socialised with a bad crowd. While at school they had associated academic achievement with effeminacy. Now they recognise it is essential for access to good jobs. Those who have family support are often keen to return to learning but sometimes find it difficult to get appropriate information about course content, funding and career prospects. Their experience of careers advice at school has not been encouraging, particularly where it came from female careers advisers. The change of emphasis offered by the Government's Connexions initiative might be of help here.27 However, one concern about Connexions is that young people are only supported until they reach the age of 19. The same research shows that many young people who have made a difficult start in the adult world usually recognise the need to make a fresh start between the ages of 19 and 23. They already find that there are few sources of independent advice available to them, and they will no longer be able to rely on their Connexions adviser. The suggestion that young people over the age of 18 should be the responsibility of New Deal personal advisers does not take account of the fact that many of those who might need help already have jobs, and are therefore not in the New Deal eligibility group. Vulnerable young people who do move onto the New Deal may find it difficult to start to relate to a new adviser, with whom they have a less supportive relationship than they are used to. Lone parents Those with unfulfilled potential, inactive lone mothers and the late starters are not a priority group for education and training policy at present, but they are likely to become more important in the drive for a high productivity, high employment economy. A combination of access to advice and guidance, flexible provision and some funding support seem to be the sort of direction in which policy should be moving.
The start of the twenty-first century is offering much better employment prospects than the last quarter of the twentieth. For most people, and particularly those with good academic and vocational qualifications, it is a time of unparalleled prosperity and opportunity. A minority are not yet fully sharing those opportunities. It is for these groups that new ways need to be found which enable them to access work and a reasonable income. The interventions identified from this research are practical and achievable and can make a real difference.
This review was prepared by Pam Meadows, Programme Adviser to the JRF Work and Opportunity programme. Notes 2 Campbell et al., 1998; Fletcher et al., 1998; Green and Owen, 1998; Hall and Mawson, 1999; McGregor et al., 1997; Plummer and Zipfel, 1998; Robinson et al., 1998; Russell, 1998; Sanderson et al., 1999; Simons, 1998; Oc et al. 1997. 3 Campbell et al., 1998; McGregor et al., 1999; Russell, 1998; Sanderson et al., 1999; Fletcher et al., 1998; Barnes et al., 1998. 4 Barnes et al., 1998; Campbell et al., 1998; Sanderson et al., 1999; Russell, 1998; Oc et al., 1997. 5 Sanderson et al., 1999; Fletcher et al., 1998; Randall and Brown, 1999; Campbell et al., 1998; Millar, 2000. 6 Barnes et al., 1998; Campbell et al., 1998; Fletcher et al., 1998; Russell, 1998; Priority Estates Project, 1997; Robinson et al., 1998; Sanderson et al., 1999; Simons, 1998; Oc et al., 1997; Russell, 1998; Marshall and Macfarlane, 2000. 7 Barnes et al., 1998; Campbell et al., 1998; Fletcher et al., 1998; McGregor et al., 1997; Priority Estates Project, 1997; Robinson et al., 1998; Sanderson et al., 1999; Simons, 1998. 8 Hall and Mawson, 1999; Plummer and Zipfel, 1998; Campbell et al., 1998; Barnes et al., 1998; Fletcher et al., 1998; McGregor et al., 1999; Millar, 2000; Priority Estates Project, 1997; Marshall and Macfarlane, 2000. 9 Campbell et al., 1998; Fletcher et al., 1998; Green and Owen, 1998; Hall and Mawson, 1999; McGregor et al., 1997; Plummer and Zipfel, 1998; Russell, 1998; Simons, 1998; Oc et al. 1997; Marshall and Macfarlane, 2000. 10 Fletcher et al., 1998; McGregor et al., 1997; Marshall and Macfarlane, 2000; Plummer and Zipfel, 1998; Green and Owen, 1998. 11 Marshall and Macfarlane, 2000; Gregg and Wadsworth, 1998; Sanderson et al., 1999. 12 Gregg and Wadsworth, 1998; Burchardt, 2000. 13 Gregg and Wadsworth, 1998; Turok and Edge, 1999; Green and Owen, 1998; Campbell et al., 1998; Noble et al., 1998; Bryson et al., 1997. 14 Burchardt, 2000; Stafford et al., 1999. 15 Storey and Brannen, 2000. 16 Stafford et al., 1999. 17 Storey and Brannen, 2000. 18 Rugg and Jones, 1999; Storey and Brannen, 2000. 19 Monk et al., 1999; Rugg and Jones, 1999; Storey and Brannen, 2000; Cartmel and Furlong, 2000. 20 Cartmel and Furlong, 2000; Pavis et al., 2000; Monk et al., 1999; Rugg and Jones, 1999; Storey and Brannen, 2000. 21 Brown et al., 2001. 22 Millar, 2000. 23 White et al., 1998. 24 Dolton et al., 1999. 25 Johnston et al., 2000; Fletcher et al., 1998. 26 Lloyd, 1999; Stafford et al., 1999; Fletcher et al., 1998; Randall and Brown, 1999; Johnston et al., 2000. 27 Lloyd, 1999. 28 Bryson et al., 1997; Noble et al., 1998; Pavis et al., 2000; Berthoud, 1999; Stafford et al., 1999; Millar, 2000; Speak, 1998.
|
